Effects on wrong-patient errors by limiting access to concurrently open ERH charts: A preliminary systematic mapping and synthesis review
Myronuk, L. D. S.
Show abstract
BackgroundSeveral recent outcome studies have been published looking at the effects of restricting electronic health record (EHR) user interfaces to limit the number of concurrently accessible patient records. Strong recommendations have been in place for several years to have user interfaces constrained to only display one patient chart at a time in order to reduce the risk of data (documentation, orders) being entered on the wrong patient (Joint Commission, 2015; ONC, 2016). This recommendation was made based on expert opinion rather than objective information, raising the question whether the accumulating evidence supports continued implementation of such chart access restrictions. ObjectivesThis work reports a systematic mapping and synthesis review addressing research questions, "What is the evidence that restricting the number of concurrently open records reduces errors? (RQ1), "How effective is restriction of concurrently open charts at reducing wrong-patient errors? (RQ2), and "What additional inquiry is needed to make evidence-based policy decisions about restricting concurrent chart access? (RQ3). MethodsA systematic search of CINAHL, PubMed, and Web of Science databases was performed with full search string specification to retrieve a result set that is the conjunction of result sets for concepts of EHR, concurrently open charts, and medical error. Of 407 studies identified and screened, five were eligible for inclusion in the qualitative synthesis review, and three were amenable to data extraction and pooled effect size calculation. ResultsNone of the studies included for review found evidence of statistically significant change in wrong-patient error rates associated with implementing restriction in the number of patient records allowed to be open concurrently in the EHR. The combined OR for the pooled studies was 1.02 (95% CI 0.90 - 1.15) with low estimates for inter-study heterogeneity and no indication of publication bias. ConclusionThere is no evidence that restricting the number of concurrently open records reduces errors (RQ1). It is not possible to definitively answer RQ2, but the magnitude of any yet to be detected beneficial effect that might be lost with lifting of chart access restriction can be no greater than an absolute risk increase of 33 errors per 100,000 ordering sessions. While it has been claimed that restricting the number of concurrently open EHR records is necessary for patient safety, the present review demonstrates that it is insufficient to attain a measurable improvement in error rates. Additional investigation of the usability and human factors aspects of EHR configuration decisions as well as knowledge of the impacts on clinical workflows will be necessary to provide policymakers, operational leaders, and practitioners with insight into the nature of the threats and opportunities with respect to safety, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of potential interventions.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- What Do Clinicians Edit in Ambient AI-Drafted Clinical Documentation? A Qualitative Content Analysis 93%
- Use of unstructured text in prognostic clinical prediction models: a systematic review 92%
- Generative Large Language Models in Electronic Health Records for Patient Care Since 2023: A Systematic Review 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- The challenges of replication: a worked example of methods reproducibility using routinely collected healthcare data 94%
- Clinical code sets and the problem of redundancy in code set repositories 93%
- Essential Indicators of Quality in Primary Care Settings: An Evidence-Based, Structured, Expert Approach 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Connecting Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Challenges: Findings from a Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Consultation 92%
- Impact of the Federated Data Platform's digital surgery scheduling system on elective theatre utilisation at an NHS Trust: an interrupted time series analysis 92%
- Measures of socioeconomic advantage are not independent predictors of support for healthcare AI: subgroup analysis of a national Australian survey 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review 93%
- Development and preliminary testing of Health Equity Across the AI Lifecycle (HEAAL): A framework for healthcare delivery organizations to mitigate the risk of AI solutions worsening health inequities 93%
- Theory of radiologist interaction with instant messaging decision support tools: a sequential-explanatory study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- How suitable are clinical vignettes for the evaluation of symptom checker apps? A test theoretical perspective 92%
- Validating a Clinical Decision Support System for Palliative Care using healthcare professionals’ insights 92%
- Enhancing Uploads of Health Data in the Electronic Health Record - The Role of Framing and Length of Privacy Information 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.